I'll confirm that Dr. Porco has repeatedly asked for me not to post amateur-produced products on The Planetary Society's website. Each time, I have contacted Cassini Mission public information and/or project management staff and asked for clarification of the Mission's policy regarding fair use of the raw images.

I think that there is a muddling here of being scientifically-scooped and kodak-scooped. There seems to be little danger of being scientifically scooped by eager assembly of the kodak moments, or even PR-science scooped, since the amateur imagery has yet to be accompianed by a press release drawing conclusions from the imagery.

If the mission really wants to make a media splash with some of these images, they can embargo the "kodak moments" but that would effectively be no different than not embargoing the images, letting APOD and TPS publish preliminary versions, and then the Cassini team releasing official imagery. USA Today and Time won't do snot without a press release, press conference, or at least a phone call to someone official.

Really the issue is that with the most awesome kodak moments, the attentioned garnered by their official release can be much more substantial than the fart in the wind generated by APOD and the TPS blog, wth no offense intended to those fantastic websites. The attentioned garnered by (for instance) a National Geographic cover and a two-page spread in Time must be pretty gratifying to the Cassini team. It needs to be understood that this level of press attention is not at risk by UMSF, APOD, and the TPS blog. The enthusiasts that frequent these sites understand where these photos are coming from.

Actually she says APOD and TPS are "grey media" which I don't fully understand, but I take it to mean something of a media not using exclusively "official" channels to get information. It seems to me the thing that bothers them is not that these sites post raw image products, but that they get a lot of exposure. Which makes me wonder if they'd feel the same about UMSF if it were as well-known.

Just my 2c.

I'll throw in $0.02 more.

I agree with you, Gordan. And frankly, the bottom line for me is whether or not the Cassini JPEG raw images are "public."

I'm not saying anything except that this coincidence caught my attention at the time, and I still note it in this discussion...

-the other Doug

Yes, but at this point, anything that obvious isn't likely to show up. Also, with a discovery like that, credit would still clearly go to the Cassini team - it isn't like you could claim to have taken the photo with your telescope or something. Not to mention the fact that one couldn't be entirely sure from the raw image. It was suspicious, but being sure would require knowing how stretched the images were.

Also interesting is the varied reactions to the Iapetus images and the plethora of theories posed to explain our favorite odd little moon. From alien runways to a low speed collision of 2 smaller identically sized moons, it seems there is no shortage of creative idea to explain things. If nothing else, it seems the Cassini imaging team would at least find some humorous entertainment value in all this . . . .

Yes, but at this point, anything that obvious isn't likely to show up.

I don't know, Ted. From my point of view, the presumed "scooping" that some seem to fear with ISS raw JPGs doesn't require a lot of expertise. After all, no offense intended, any idiot (or at least one with a smattering of knowledge) can discover a new moon, ring, or, say, plumes off Enceladus without needing a PhD in planetary sciences. Of course, the same could be said about what's going on with, for example, the MER Victoria Crater imagery, (i.e., craters, rocks, sand dunes, etc.). In MER's case, though, Squyres et al. have embraced the public's participation and seem to be pleased with the widespread interest in their mission. They have deservedly reaped the fruits of their very positive public outreach effort. And no one can claim that the MER team hasn't gotten all of the well-deserved credit for their discoveries, notwithstanding the amateurs' efforts here.

On the other hand, to be fair, remember that, warranted or not, ISS is the most publicly identifiable instrument on Cassini. And I can sympathize with Dr. Porco to a certain degree here. After all, as far as I know, NASA isn't forcing the other Cassini instrument teams (let alone RADAR and VIMS) to give the public a sneak preview of their data. And as Dr. Porco pointed out earlier in thread via the "mysagan" proxy, the same type of relationship (i.e., cameras vs. "other" instruments) held true for MER as well.

EDIT: I guess the main difference in this case is that Jim Bell of Pancam isn't whining that the public gets a sneak preview of his imagery while Gostar Klingelhöfer gets to sit on his Mössbauer spectra.

I'm getting the impression you don't realise the extent to which scientists like you are respected for what is being achieved, photographically and scientifically.

It's not like amateur images are being shown on TV for the masses. They're being viewed by amateurs with an 'advanced' knowledge gained through interest in planetary missions in particular. Having worked on a number of mosaics from the MER-mission myself, I've never been arrogant as far as I know, or naive (that I'm sure) to the fact that people may like the images, save them and print them or whatever..BUT they look forward -always- to the official release.

Processing raw imagery is merely providing a humble preview and something for the fellow enthusiasts to look forward to when the pros get to release their calibrated, corrected, 'valid' versions of the views provided by these missions. And heck, you guys put that spacecraft up there in the first place right?

So... Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the matter, but then again, there's not that much to it. And it's certainly not worth discussing it much further than this, since in the end, there IS respect, and the knowledge to who we have to thank the images for in the first place.

Nico

--------------------

photographer, space imagery enthusiast, proud father and partner, and geek.

The speculation here about the Enceladan plumes was one example where folks here speculated on a Cassini discovery prior to the official announcements but so too was the speculation on the reappearance of the ring spokes. If I recall correctly they were discussed here a number of days before it was officially acknowledged that they had re-appeared.

I understand Dr Porco's irritation with that but I can't see that problem going away - the whole reason we are enthusiasts is that we are interested in this stuff and some folk here go to fairly extraordinary lengths to feed that interest. There are very few people here who would look at a Cassini image, potentially see Spokes (or Plumes, a Titanian river or evidence of change on Enceladus ...) and then decide to shut up about it.

So is it OK to speculate in that way here but must we then refuse permission to forward the results to APOD or to forbid Emily or anyone else to blog about such speculation on TPS? As UMSF's reach increases (now that Doug is acting as a TPS rep in Dharmstadt for example, or the recent appearance on the BBC) are we about to reach a stage where UMSF becomes classifiable as "Media" and as a result becomes held to a higher standard.

The sentiment expressed by Stevesliva captures the most important point for me:

QUOTE

The attentioned garnered by (for instance) a National Geographic cover and a two-page spread in Time must be pretty gratifying to the Cassini team. It needs to be understood that this level of press attention is not at risk by UMSF, APOD, and the TPS blog. The enthusiasts that frequent these sites understand where these photos are coming from.

No disrespect intended, but isn't someone in your position too busy to worry about who-said-what-to-whom OUTSIDE of your workplace?

I've worked in PR for many years for high profile individuals who are in the news all the time. Most of the time it's simply not possible to address each "rumor" as you say, or debate over the very public endeavors that people ponder and speculate and write letters to the newspapers over. I remind them they simply don't have time to get involved in every discussion relating to their work. My advice to them has always been, let your accomplishments speak for themselves.

I think it's right and fair that Carolyn air her comments at UMSF in response to recent goings on - however I think I should further clarify a few points.

The source of the 'rumors' is that on multiple occasions, for whatever reason, people have responded to Carolyn's feedback by stopping their work with Cassini imagery all together. In one case this was the removing of an amateurs work from the private website (which would rather fly in the face of the suggestion that it is only via media outlets this is a problem) , and indeed one person responded by vouching to never work with imagery from any current mission. One has to ask - what inspired them to react so strongly?

It seems unlikely that anyone was told that it was great to see them working with raw imagery but could they just keep it to their own website and not share it via any media outlets. That's not the sort of message that stops you working on imagery all together. Perhaps the message they got was a little too broad and too strong.

But, truthfully, I don't believe any of that actually matters. The creation of movies, mosaics and colour images form the raw imagery and the publishing of those creations anywhere on the scale from forum, to personal website to media outlet or print, is entirely allowed within the JPL image useage policy.

Given that it can be days, weeks or even several months until some imaging products are put together officially (and given the limited resources science teams have, this is understandable) , it seems a little counterproductive to not encourage people to produce and display the 'stop gap' pretty pictures that many here and elsewhere enjoy. No one is ruining the party by having one next door...we're simply having a few drinks to get everyone in the mood before the party gets started because sometimes, the party starts quite late.

Once the raw images are online - everyone can see them, everyone can see anything they might show be it geysers, spokes, or the next new discovery, everyone can turn to someone who understands what they might be seing and say 'what do you make of this', but not everyone can enjoy them fully because they don't know how to put them together. The role of the amateur enthusiast has been to make the absolute most of every image as often and as quickly as possible.

I believe that any image that a media outlet considers of sufficient quality to be published is an achievment of which all parties should be proud - amateur and scientist alike. Surely the whole point is to have as many movies, maps, mosaics and pretty pictures as possible seen by as many people as possible - whoever has made them and wherever they are posted. Every time something makes it to APOD or the cover of a Magazine or elsewhere it's a credit to the mission, the decision to share the pictures, the people who made that decision and the instrument they built and command.

We have all seen the revised scope of the image useage policy, and that opinions from both sides of the issue have been made fully public. There is little more that can be said on the matter and I think it is now time that enthusiasts were left to make up their own minds, to create what they feel they should and share it how and where they feel appropriate.

The speculation here about the Enceladan plumes was one example where folks here speculated on a Cassini discovery prior to the official announcements but so too was the speculation on the reappearance of the ring spokes.

I can understand a scientist's frustration. The interested public is free to speculate wildy on this and that possibility based on the images. And if one of the speculations pans out, it looks like the scientists were "scooped". On the other hand, the scientists must be much more deliberate, methodical, and thus slower. They can't jump to conclusions too soon.

The age of the internet is truly something new that will take getting used to.

Interesting comments, along the lines -- both in number and nature -- of what I expected. I'm relieved that the majority of you `get' where we are coming from, and thank you very much for your understanding and support.

Some clarifications and comments:

- When I refer to `doing science' with the images and `scooping', I am referring to professional scientists publishing results from the raw JPGs before the Cassini Imaging scientists do. I am not referring to amateurs enjoying the real-time analysis and speculation of what's in the images scientifically. If you read my early Captain's Logs, I believe I even invited the public to enjoy this activity along with us. Also, I'm glad that you realize that mere sighting of anything in these images -- small moons, geysers, etc -- does not constitute a credited `discovery' on the part of someone looking at our images. This is so for several reasons, two obvious ones of which are: (i) it is almost certain someone here at CICLOPS has already seen it, since we go through all the images as soon as they come down to look for such things and to choose the best images for release, and (ii) as several of you have already said, we were responsible for the scientific motivation, designing the observing strategy, sequencing the images, determining exposure times, etc., and the scientific results in them naturally gets credited to the Imaging Team. No one credits the discovery of America to the guy in the crow's nest of Christopher Columbus' ship.

And no, it won't look to us like we were scooped if your speculations pan out. They are just speculations, and these are a dime a dozen in any scientific discourse. Remember: we Cassini scientists aren't exactly sitting idly by, but are forming our own speculations. The real brunt of the work, however, occurs in *proving* the speculation, and that's what separates the women from the girls.

So, feel free to speculate away and have fun. Your activities in this area are not a bother at all. In fact, it's been fun to drop in on those the very few times I have. And now that you know the coast is clear, feel free to submit your speculations at Sector 6.

- While one of the UMSF members might have said that the imaging team concluded that the Enc plume was a camera artifact, there were members of the team who felt otherwise. Given that it easily *could* have been a camera artifact, we had to be cautious (as another one of you so wisely said). We in fact knew they were real features long before the November 2005 Enceladus high phase image came down. But we didn't say anything about it outside of the Cassini project until our Science paper came out in March 2006, in which we also included the November results.

- The purpose of my post was to explain the point of view we here at CICLOPS have taken on this matter and to clear the air. As it seems I have been successful in this, I will now bow out and get back to tending to our experiment. We are in the midst of preparing a big image release, probably for mid- to late next week, and we hope you enjoy the results.

No one credits the discovery of America to the guy in the crow's nest of Christopher Columbus' ship.

But to the lookout and his mates it was possibly the most important thing that happened that day. That's us.

We do what we do and we have fun doing it, you do what you do and you change the destiny of humanity. So long as we (the enthusiasts) and the really important people who plan, build, manage and execute the missions and experiments (that we love) realize that that distinction is clear then I think we can all get along just fine. b

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted.
Do not reproduce without permission. Read
here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the
individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer
UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent
of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence
over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.

SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society
and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep
this forum up and running by contributing
here.